1. You may show the documents on record starting from job advt, job application, interview call letter, selection letter, offer letter, appointment letter, service agreement, BOND, all communications exchanged till date, notice of the sole arbitrator appointed by the company, and any other communication record ......................to your Labor Law consultant/service matter lawyer and understand the merits and options and remedies before you proceed further and start writing to your company.................
The reply to the legal notice should preferably be issued thru your able lawyer.
2. Get in touch with Employee’s Unions/Trade Unions leaders like CITU,INTUC,AITUC,BMS etc…………………and other IT/ITeS Employee’s Unions.
Trade Unions in West Bengal and Maharashtra have traditionally been very strong.
There are many IT/ITeS employee’s unions and they are doing a good job and trade unions like CITU,INTUC,AITUC,BMS etc are willing to embrace the employee’s from your sector….
IT/BPO Voice of India | Facebook
Shiv Mahiti Ani Tantradyan Sena(Shiv IT SENA)
Shiv Sena forms first union in information technology sector
Another Political party PMK in Tamilnadu has joined the movement…
You may go thru::
A Chennai-based group called Young Tamil Nadu Movement(YTNM)
The IT Employees Centre (ITEC) and the Federation of IT Employees (FITE)
I have attempted to post meaningful and relevant information in threads at LCI in similar queries.
YOu can search threads with similar queries at:
( the right hand bottom side you will find button with ' Search
Topics and Posts'...................GO......................just enter the key words and you shall have access to plethora of information.)
And many other threads at many other forums e.g.;
3. The service agreement is created in lieu of what: extra ordinary favor by the company e.g. some certified training from some certified Instt.? If yes did the company provide it or breached its own promise?
Did the company place the agreement before you before issuing the appointment letter or after it?
Did the company make some equitable promise of not terminating the employment before……..months and pay equitable
amount as compensation if it does?
Did the company provide everything on time e.g. payment of earned wages, ask to do duty beyond work hours and pay OT, behave properly at work place...................etc...................?
All of these would be required to understand the reasons that your lawyer would need, hence the inputs and evidence is to be provided by you!
The company is counting on on line of acceptance by you to claim the liquidated damages stated in agreement :::::::that is you can not rescind the contract signed by you!
Did the company issue emails/letters/notices/show cause notice/legal notice till date and did you reply to it?
Is it stated in BOND that matter can be referred to Arbitrator and Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed by company?
The fitting reply by your lawyer could have put the matter on PERMANENT SHUT UP MODE..........
If the company decides to take the matter to court then court shall decide and it might be Pro rated damages.
Your lawyer may also opine that liquidated damages are not necessarily to be paid on demand and may have to be proved.
You have made the same mistake that majority of the employees make i.e. they remain ill informed, do not form unions,do not form GRC( Grievance Redressal Committees..............................that will have equal no. of employees....................and some states e.g Karnataka has notified it), Works Committee (that is an authority as per ID Act and President is from employee's side and has equal no. of employees and can negotiate service conditions and take up such matters), affiliate with trade Unions..........................and offer themselves for exploitation by unscrupulous employers........
You can also seek guidance from leaders of Trade Unions Leaders e.g. CITU,INTUC,AITUC,BMS etc.......................and their intervention can comple the company to withdraw the legal notice............
The bondage has been prohibited by the law of the land long time back!!!!!!
Hence the employer and his attorney's in Line Management/HR /legal cell resort to tactics so as to extract the amounts to employee without entering into litigation.
It shall be fair of the employer and his attorney's in Line Management/HR /legal cell to not to impose any service agreement/bond on employees if there are expenses incurred on employee on some meaningful training.......
Thee employees on their part should form Employee's unions/GRC/Work's Committe(that is an authority as per ID Act)
and negotiate service conditions with employers and put a full stop to unethical and illegal practices....
The employee should clearly decline that employer did not incur any expense on any training from some certified Institute that added to the qualification of the employee or employer did not incur any expense on any extra ordinary favor to employee.....
The readers may find following threads and following judgment, legal points and legal interpretations relevant and useful...........................
Interestingly the employee and his lawyer by not declining to point out that there is no possibility of calculating the damages and hence court of law awarded the employer award of Rs. Rs.44,330/ against claim of Rs.3,95,170/ by the employer.........
Had the employee and his lawyer not erred the court might have not awarded this peanuts amount of RsRs.44,330/ also.................
Delhi High Court
M/S. Sicpa India Limited vs Shri Manas Pratim Deb on 17 November, 2011
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 9.7.2002. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for recovery by entitling the appellant to adjust an amount of Rs.44,330/- payable to the respondent/defendant/employee and held that the appellant was not entitled to recovery of Rs.3,95,170/- as claimed in the plaint.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff/employer appointed the respondent/defendant as a Sales Executive on 28.11.1994. The appellant/plaintiff company is engaged in manufacture of specialized inks. The appellant/plaintiff claims to have sent the respondent/defendant abroad for training twice and for which two employment bonds dated 24.4.1995 and 24.1.1998 were got executed. As per the employment bonds, the respondent/defendant was either bound to serve for a period of five years or pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs if he left the services earlier. The respondent/defendant tendered his resignation vide letter dated 21.2.2000 i.e. before the expiry of period of five years i.e. period of the second bond dated 24.1.1998. The appellant/plaintiff therefore enforced the two bonds and called upon the respondent/defendant to make the payment of Rs.2 lacs for each of the bond besides claiming an amount of Rs.17,290/- as notice period of 57 days and Rs.117/- towards excess medical expenses reimbursed.
3. The respondent/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the clauses of the bonds in question were unfair, unjust and just opposed to the public policy and therefore the same were not enforceable. â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..
5. The trial Court has arrived at the following conclusions for dismissal of the suit:-
(i) Clauses in question which are part of the employment bonds are violative of Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872 as they are in the nature of penalty and hence the same cannot be enforced.
(ii) So far as the first bond is concerned, the same was more or less complied with as the resignation is of February, 2000 and the bond would have expired by April, 2000. So far as the second bond is concerned, it was held that total expenses which were incurred for the second trip were of Rs.67,596/- and which would have been recouped by the period of two years of the service given after execution of the second bond. In any case, the trial Court held that the respondent/defendant was entitled to Rs.44,330/- as per the admitted case of the appellant/plaintiff and which amount therefore can be treated as adjusted for the claims against the second bond since the expenses of the second trip were only Rs.67,596/-.
10. In view of the aforesaid and considering the fact that first bond had more or less worked itself out, the second bond was towards a trip of which expenses were only of about Rs.67,000/- and the respondent/defendant had worked for two years besides the impugned judgment allowing an adjustment of Rs.44,330/-,â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..
4. Since time available to you is short get in touch with an able lawyer ASAP in person at your location and proceed under expert advice of your lawyer.
On line discussions have its won limitations and can’t replace the merits and remedies suggested by a lawyer that has examined the docs and inputs in person.